For six of the 19 panchayats in Bicholim taluka, a visit to the local Block Development Office (BDO) has become a regular feature since June 30 and it has nothing to do with development work.
That sarpanchas and deputy sarpanchas of these six panchayats either resigned, got elected or were served with a no-confidence motion within a gap of barely three days has left many people suggesting that frequent changes have had another BDO effect – Blocking Development Operations.
Since panchayat elections were held in the State on May 16, 2012, most panchayats have already witnessed a change in the sarpanch or the deputy sarpanch.
Bicholim taluka has 19 panchayats, of which Harvalem, the newly created panchayat, will conduct elections for the first time on July 13.
On July 2, a no-confidence motion was submitted against the sarpanchas of Karapur-Sarvan and Kudnem Panchayats. On the same day, the Pilgao deputy sarpanch was also served with a no-confidence motion.
The first week of July was also significant for Narve and Latambarcem panchayats, as resignations submitted by their sarpanchas were accepted. Mulgao panchayat also witnessed a change after Santosh Saraf was elected unopposed as the new sarpanch on June 30.
Staff at the Bicholim BDO informed that only seven of 19 panchayats had managed to remain stable without any change in the past two years.
“Various reasons are cited by panchas while moving no-confidence motions. The common reasons include allegations of misappropriation of funds, not being taken into confidence in development works and interference in the panchayat work,” observed BDO Extension Officer S V Rane.
According to former Mulgao sarpanch Tulsidas Parab, mutual agreements between panchas have also become a popular motive to trigger changes in grassroots leadership.
“Panchas have mutually agreed to rotate power among themselves for a fixed tenure. But I feel that such pre-determined agreements should be banned. When people elect panchas, they do so because they feel that they can develop the village. The post of sarpanch or deputy sarpanch is not a gift which can be shared.”
“Such practices of changing power over mutual agreements are dangerous to the development of the village and should be banned. I feel the panchayat rules should be changed and villagers should elect the sarpanch and the deputy sarpanch. In that way, the panch members will not have any say in the matter,” said Parab.
Anand Narvekar of Karapur-Sarvan also expressed displeasure over frequent changes in power at the local bodies.
“They change the sarpanch or the deputy as money or politics influence such deals,” alleged Narvekar, whose panchayat has already changed its sarpanch twice.
“It hampers development as the new sarpanch needs about six months merely to understand the working of the panchayat. By the time the sarpanch goes through all files, he/she is hit by a no-confidence motion. In this game of musical chairs, the common man suffers due to these changes initiated by panch members for ‘personal development’ rather than ‘public development’,” said Narvekar.
Suresh Baykar from Surla is also unhappy over the frequent power change in panchayats.
“The nine-member Surla panchayat has five male and four female panch members. Just recently, the sarpanch and the deputy sarpanch resigned due to a mutual agreement. Here, almost every male panch will become sarpanch and every female panch will serve as deputy sarpanch till during the panchayat’s five year tenure,” remarked Baykar.
But while people at large are critical of leadership changes in panchayats, many panchayat members have supported of such changes, claiming that it is part of democracy.
“No doubt, development might be hampered in some panchayats, but if the person holding the post is not suitable and fails to undertake work, he/she needs to be removed from the post,” justifies Karapur-Sarvan Deputy Sarpanch Dheeraj Sawant.
“But if someone is well-versed in panchayat affairs and is doing a commendable job, then he/she should be given support. It would be bad if a no-confidence motion is passed against such a person merely for pecuniary gains,” said Sawant
